Who else disagree's with quote of Barth

[cbro]

Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ. (Karl Barth) (studyhound's sig)

To believe this would mean Christ has entirely and altogether nothing to do with us in our every day lives now.

[cbro]

What, nobody but studyhound cares about Barth

[Richbee]

Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ. (Karl Barth) (studyhound's sig)

To believe this would mean Christ has entirely and altogether nothing to do with us in our every day lives now.


You need to quote Barth in context and name the source.

[Solly]

I think you will find that you are taking Barth's use of the word Eschatology in a different way from taht intended by Barth. Common usage applies the word to those doctrines known as the Last Things: ie everything happening from just before Christ's return to our reception into glory or damnation. This is not Barth's usage. For him and writers like him, eschatology refers to that which was in God's mind from the beginning, the teleological purpose of God's creation, that humans and God should dwell together. The revelation of the Garden of Eden, in scripture, is an eschatological revelation of what God intends. All that he does is characterised by the ends which he pursues. Paul gives us an eschatological statement that governs all our lives when he speaks of God summing all things up in Christ. It's not about being Left Behind, or Right About The End Times, or pre- mid- or post-trib, etc, things Barth had no interest in.

[studyhound]

I think you will find that you are taking Barth's use of the word Eschatology in a different way from taht intended by Barth. Common usage applies the word to those doctrines known as the Last Things: ie everything happening from just before Christ's return to our reception into glory or damnation. This is not Barth's usage. For him and writers like him, eschatology refers to that which was in God's mind from the beginning, the teleological purpose of God's creation, that humans and God should dwell together. The revelation of the Garden of Eden, in scripture, is an eschatological revelation of what God intends. All that he does is characterised by the ends which he pursues. Paul gives us an eschatological statement that governs all our lives when he speaks of God summing all things up in Christ. It's not about being Left Behind, or Right About The End Times, or pre- mid- or post-trib, etc, things Barth had no interest in.
:thumb:

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nothing like a quick close thread! We need more of 'em. :badger:

[cbro]

I think you will find that you are taking Barth's use of the word Eschatology in a different way from taht intended by Barth. Common usage applies the word to those doctrines known as the Last Things: ie everything happening from just before Christ's return to our reception into glory or damnation. This is not Barth's usage. For him and writers like him, eschatology refers to that which was in God's mind from the beginning, the teleological purpose of God's creation, that humans and God should dwell together. The revelation of the Garden of Eden, in scripture, is an eschatological revelation of what God intends. All that he does is characterised by the ends which he pursues. Paul gives us an eschatological statement that governs all our lives when he speaks of God summing all things up in Christ. It's not about being Left Behind, or Right About The End Times, or pre- mid- or post-trib, etc, things Barth had no interest in.

But that changes the meaning of the word Eschatology,doesn't it?

[Solly]

No, it just means theologians have a broader grasp of meanings than those obsessed with time tables :poke:

*sll2

[cbro]

[QUOTE=Solly]No, it just means theologians have a broader grasp of meanings than those obsessed with time tables

but theologians like him, who are so obsessed with their grasp of meanings that they will insist on things like Jesus being wrong because He doesn't know things that even they still don't know, show that they don't deserve the idolatry of the followers who insist they can't be wrong. Which shows them to be people of my sig.

[Solly]

*sbrd

Well, if you put it that way, obviously you don't deserve notice either, since you have already decided what things mean, and everyone else is wrong.

Btw, your sig line doesn't actually make sense. *sahm

[cbro]

[QUOTE=Solly]*sbrd
but theologians like him, who are so obsessed with their grasp of meanings that they will insist on things like Jesus being wrong because He doesn't know things that even they still don't know, show that they don't deserve the idolatry of the followers who insist they can't be wrong. Which shows them to be people of my sig.
Well, if you put it that way, obviously you don't deserve notice either, since you have already decided what things mean, and everyone else is wrong.
The fact that I had to repeat the 'way I put it' because you deleted it,and that you don't agree with the meanings that have been commonly agreed on, as shown in the dictionary, shows that you may not want to admit it, but you do know how obvious it is that you are one of Barth's disciples that I mentioned. Instead of being a disciple of Jesus the Christ that Barth says he is following.
Btw, your sig line doesn't actually make sense. *sahm
It doesn't make sense because I don't make up my own words, like sbrd or sahm

[GrayPilgrim]

The first time the word Eschatology occured written in the English language, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was only in 1845 by a certain George Bush.* It had only been coined in Germany in the early part of that century. And even then it appears to have the same defintion as that recognized in the OED (1891 and 1933):the department of theological science concerned with the four last things, death, judgment, heaven, and hell." So while it is to some extant stretching the word, it is a German practice to coin words and to imbue them with larger meaning, moreover, I would say that Barth has precedent in the Apostle Peter who labeled Pentecost as taking place in the last days, hence I would say that most Christians should have some type of inaugurated eschatology. The Christian faith is in a very real sense escatological, though it may not be eschatological as you will find in the narrow sense that you have argued. Look again at the definition that OED has and see that it is a broader term than is often implied by the way we use it.


* This comes from G.B. Caird's Language and Imagery of the Bible, 243.

[James Peter]

Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ. (Karl Barth) (studyhound's sig)

To believe this would mean Christ has entirely and altogether nothing to do with us in our every day lives now.

The two statements don't go together at all unless you have a very, very narrow definition of eschatology. Wasn't the very reason that Christ came to fulfil the law (Matthew 5)? To rip open heaven and pour out the Spirit of God (Acts 2)?

Isn't the very purpose of the Church to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)

If you understand that these days are the last days then Barth makes perfect sense. He isn't saying that christianity is about arguing over when the rapture is going to be or when the tribulation will be...

Barth is saying that we are to be focused upon and motivated by the fact that the Bridegroom could come at any point and we need to be ready and focused on the task that He has left us.

It would definately help if the quote was put in context though and ideally if those commenting had actually read enough of Barth's work to understand where he is coming from...

[Solly]

Barth reader here. Also Geerhardus Vos.

[cbro]

QUOTE=Solly Barth reader here. Also Geerhardus Vos.

Solly, did you also read the post below or my new sig?

but theologians like him, who are so obsessed with their grasp of meanings that they will insist on things like Jesus being wrong because He doesn't know things that even they still don't know, show that they don't deserve the idolatry of the followers who insist they can't be wrong. Which shows them to be people of my sig.
Well, if you put it that way, obviously you don't deserve notice either, since you have already decided what things mean, and everyone else is wrong.
The fact that I had to repeat the 'way I put it' because you deleted it,and that you don't agree with the meanings that have been commonly agreed on, as shown in the dictionary, shows that you may not want to admit it, but you do know how obvious it is that you are one of Barth's disciples that I mentioned. Instead of being a disciple of Jesus the Christ that Barth says he is following.
Btw, your sig line doesn't actually make sense. *sahm
It doesn't make sense because I don't make up my own words, like sbrd or sahm

[cbro]

[QUOTE=GrayPilgrim]The first time the word Eschatology occured written in the English language, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was only in 1845 by a certain George Bush.* It had only been coined in Germany in the early part of that century. And even then it appears to have the same defintion as that recognized in the OED (1891 and 1933):the department of theological science concerned with the four last things, death, judgment, heaven, and hell." So while it is to some extant stretching the word, it is a German practice to coin words and to imbue them with larger meaning, moreover, I would say that Barth has precedent in the Apostle Peter who labeled Pentecost as taking place in the last days, hence I would say that most Christians should have some type of inaugurated eschatology. The Christian faith is in a very real sense escatological, though it may not be eschatological as you will find in the narrow sense that you have argued. Look again at the definition that OED has and see that it is a broader term than is often implied by the way we use it.


* This comes from G.B. Caird's Language and Imagery of the Bible, 243.
So while it is to some extant stretching the word, it is a German practice to coin words and to imbue them with larger meaning
Since I don't speak German, I believe it is too much stretching. As I say in the OP after the Poll. Even though there is the "Last days" connection.

[cbro]

[QUOTE=James Peter]The two statements don't go together at all unless you have a very, very narrow definition of eschatology. Wasn't the very reason that Christ came to fulfil the law (Matthew 5)? To rip open heaven and pour out the Spirit of God (Acts 2)?

Isn't the very purpose of the Church to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)

If you understand that these days are the last days then Barth makes perfect sense. He isn't saying that christianity is about arguing over when the rapture is going to be or when the tribulation will be...

Barth is saying that we are to be focused upon and motivated by the fact that the Bridegroom could come at any point and we need to be ready and focused on the task that He has left us.

It would definately help if the quote was put in context though and ideally if those commenting had actually read enough of Barth's work to understand where he is coming from...

Basically, I really believe Barth went overboard with what he said and so it should be not seen again.